CHAPDISC: DH31, The Battle of Hogwarts

[Sandy]

No: HPFGUIDX 184650

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Chris" <c.john at ...> wrote:
>
>> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,
> Chapter 31, The Battle of Hogwarts
> 

> 1.    Is it believable that there are no good Slytherins? Wouldn't
> one or two of them remain to fight? Are they all
> totally unredeemable? Or is it just herd mentality i.e. one leaves
> they all leave?

I think JKR was very consistent with the logic of her story this 
way. If you read it shallowly yes they were all evil. But critical 
thinkers can see all sorts of layers.   

First. Keep in mind that some of them have parents that are death 
eaters. Given JKR's focus on families in the novels, I not sure that 
this was a statement about good or evil, but in fact more consistent 
with the idea, that even bad guys love and have family. Also, she 
has stated in interviews that the Slytherins come back in 
the 'family/village' wave. I think she intended to show the 
Slytherins going to their familes and then coming back to fight for 
Harry together. However she fumled this part in the text. It is not 
all clear, that they do. 
 tha Hufflepuffs are very much like Slytherins in that both are 
manipulating 'people people'. But Hufflepuffs are people who focus 
on society above family and Slytherins are the opposite. A Slytherin 
may fight for country once they see that their family is safe, while 
a Hufflepuff will think I have to fight for my country or my family 
isn't safe. 

Also just practically, McGonagall orders them all out. They don't 
have a choice to stay. The other houses had just pointed their wands 
at them etc...it wasn't smart to stay then. Also by staying they'd 
by showing their fellow Slytherins, some of whom where DE 
sympathizers that they where Harry sympathisers. I.e. marking 
themnselves as traitors and therefore making themselves the top 
enemy of their fellow DE Slytherins.  

Better self-preservation wise to sneak back latter. Also of course 
both Slughorne and Snape never hesitate to fight for Harry.    

> 2.    I would have thought that rumours of the ghosts
> pasts would definitely have been well known by all students. 
Bearing  in mind that Harry and co. learn plenty about Nick, 
wouldn't someone from Ravenclaw have figured out about the Grey Lady 
and passed that information on?

No. First of all the Grey Lady is a very quiet personality. She 
seems to rarely talk to the students, beyond the fomalities. Even 
the Ravenclaws. 

They did do this by the way, led by Cho and Michael Corner. When 
Harry needed it. 

Maybe JKR would say it was gossiped about in the school, but Harry 
never picked it up as important. The story sounds more like girl 
gossip anyway. It is a 'tragic love story', sort of. Guys don't pay 
attention to that sort of stuff. And I say that as a guy. 

Also, each house ghost's story is unique to the house. I think it 
would make sense if it were part of school tradition not to tell the 
other houses the background of their ghost. The Slytherins 
for example might believe also sorts of erraneous things about 
Nearly Headless Nick. For instance tongue in cheek, really bandy 
stories about:  ````````` 

> 3.    Why would Helena, who coveted her mother's cleverness,
> hide in a forest in Albania on obtaining the diadem? Wouldn't the
> whole reason for stealing the diadem be to demonstrate to others 
how clever you are?

Her main motivation was hiding from the Baron, who she knew ( I 
think) was after her. A she said, she never suspected that the Baron 
would look their. She expected him to look for her in a library or 
something. 

Instead she tried to find the remotest location she knew about. She 
also didn't steal the diadem to be clever, she did it to be 
petulant. I.e She was being a spoiled, clever emotional brat.   

> 4.    How could Dumbledore not have found out that Helena stole
> the diadem? When you consider how difficult it was for him to get 
hold of the ring and help Harry obtain the fake locket, would he 
really not have found out information that resided in his own 
school? Doesn't seem very likely to me.

Simple. The Diadem story was known in full only to the Grey Lady and 
she wasn't telling anyone. And magic generally doesn't seem to work 
much on a ghosts at all.  

> 5.    Would Dumbledore really never have found the Room of
> Requirement? He also fails to find the Chamber of Secrets? For 
such an omnipotent wizard, that seems two rather big failures.

He did find the Room of Requirement, (remember the chamber pots) but 
failed to note its signifigance). He himself admits that he couldn't 
and didn't think of everything and is prone to failure. 

There is no way he could have found the chamber of secrets, he 
wasn't able to speak parseltongue. Nor like Ron, did he have a 
natural talent for being a mimic. Also, perhaps because of his own 
fame, he seemed to have a noteable lack of interest in the history 
of founders (aside from Gryffindor -whom he might of though himself 
the equal of) This might also explain his lack of knowledge about 
the diadem.   
 
> 6.    Isn't it a bit reckless to rush through the castle with a
> bunch of
> mandrakes? Surely the commotion in the castle would aggravate them?
> Aren't they
> at risk of killing innocent students/teachers?

1. Their desperate 2. Whose to say that the mandrakes aren't also 
fighting for Harry. Sacrificing themselves with full knowledge of 
what is at stake. 3. There has to be some sort of spell to keep them 
quite while being moved. I imagine the earmuffs are only for after 
they throw them. I.e they are sort of like sonic grenades. You have 
to pull the pin.
  
> 7.    Is it remotely believable that Ron could remember enough
> Parseltongue to enter the Chamber?

Barely. My impression. JKR had written herself into a plot hole. Yes 
she could have have Harry go with them to the room to retrieve the 
teeth, but it would have been a very boring diversion, unless she 
wanted a final showdown there again. But Voldemort kidnapping Ginny 
and dragging her into the chamber of secrets would have been an 
awesome ending to. Or she could have re-written it, by having Ginny 
going after Harry this time. But either of those would have been 
repetitive and cliche. 

She wanted Ron to do something dramatic to earn Hermione's respect. 
But outright saving her life would have been to melodramatic and 
cliche. So she did this. It is one of ht weaker scenes in the books. 
It doesn't quite work. 

I'm willing to bet in the move, they let Ron earn his kills by 
outright saving her. Or maybe other DA.  

The idea that Ron would remember in detail one of the most tramatic 
instances of his life, is not completely far fetched. In retrospect 
the chamber incident seems to have scared Ron almost as much as 
Ginny 

> 8.    If Harry truly loves Ginny, wouldn't he make more of an
> effort to stop her entering the battle?

He did all he could within reason, given his other responsibilities. 
The only way he could have stopped her would have been by stunning 
her and he wouldn't have done that. Besides, he knew in her heart 
that despite the danger, if he truly loved her, he had to let her 
fight. 
> 
> 9.    Do we think Tonks appearance at the castle makes her a
> good wife or a bad mother?

Neither. I don't understand this argument. Her child is only one 
member of her family. The child is left in safe hands. She is like a 
typical Hufflepuff in that she thinks the good of society has to 
come before the good of her family, or that her family is only safe 
if society is.  

Give you an example. A mother with an infant knows that terrorist 
are about to blow up a nuclear power plant. She's one of the only 
people who can stop them. But if she does, and she fails her child 
will die when the plant is blown up. If she stays, she can spirit 
the child away and they will both be safe. But if she doesn't help 
the plant might blow up an lot of people will die. 

This is very close to Tonks moral calondrum given that she's one of 
only about a dozen people with any hope at all of beating Voldy or 
even Snape or Bella e one or one, if it came down to it.

How may student lives did she save by taking on Bella. (JKR says in 
an interview that this is what happened). This is another thing that 
she foreshadowed (even within the same book - that we don't see live)
JKR focuses on Family. But I think, she considered the Weasley's as 
part of Tonks family. I.e the 'order' is family to Tonks.         

> 
> 10.   What is going through Malfoy's head in the Room of
> Requirement? Is he only concerned about delivering Harry to the 
Dark Lord alive? Or does he want his family freed from Voldemort's 
influence and realises Harry may be his only chance for freedom?
> 
I didn't read this that deeply. My impression, was that Malfoy just 
didn't believe in murder. In his view, nothing every justified that 
choice.  

> 11.    Why is Harry suddenly so reticent to use the Cruciatus
> curse? Crabbe is trying to kill his friends – wouldn't this anger 
Harry more than his previous attempts with this curse?

Two reasons. One. Using risks angering Malfoy, who seems to be one 
their side somewhat. Two, at this moment Harry is still looking at 
Crabbe as a victim of the Death Eater's who is captive to their 
ideology and not someone who has made the concious choice to be a 
Death Eater. He thinks he is to dumb to do that. He sees the error 
of his ways latter.    

> 
> 12.     Crabbe is a complete idiot – how could he manage to conjure
> such a devastating curse (Fiedfyre)?

Idiot's can still get things half-right, half-the time. Or perhaps 
as with most people who do poorly in school, he is only an idiot 
with the things he cares nothing about. Fiedfyre interested him. 
Perhaps he was always a wanna be pyro at heart. 

> 
> 13.     Why, why, why did she have to kill Fred???

Beacause, one Weasley had to die. Breathe a sigh of relief. She has 
said in interviews that she seriously considered killing both Ron 
and Mr. Weasley at one point. So in way the Weasley's got off easy. 
Harry Potter could have been even darker. For realism's sake at 
least one Weasley had to die, otherwise the story wouldn't have been 
believable. Just as Colin had to die and Lavender be hurt. 
 
DA Jones (Sandy)